Essay 2 Final Draft

Adam Clark
Writ-1122
Professor Leake
03/05/2012
The Legality of Killing an al-Qaeda Official is Questioned?
Monday May 2, 2011, this date by itself seems like any other day, but knowing it is the day the US successfully killed Osama Bin Laden, makes it an important day for the US and the war against al-Qaeda. The death of this prominent al-Qaeda member was taking almost unanimously as a success and something worthy of praise. The seal team given credit for the mission was idolized though they remained anonymous, and the President’s decision to carry out the attack was not questioned. Later in 2011, another high-ranking official in an al-Qaeda affiliate was targeted and killed, but this killing created controversy over who the government was allowed to target. On September 30, 2011, Anwar al-Awlaki and several others were killed in a CIA led drone strike in Yemen. When first looking at this, there seems to be little room for controversy over the killing. Anwar al-Awlaki had been placed on the CIA “kill or capture” list in April 2010, and had been accused of assisting multiple terror attempts on US soil since September 11. The controversy comes with Anwar al-Awlaki citizenship, being both a United States and Yemen citizen. He was the first United States Citizen to be placed the kill or capture list, and the first citizen to be targeted and killed in an American lead attack.
Anwar al-Awlaki was born in New Mexico in 1971, where is father studying agriculture. At the age of seven he moved to Yemen where he grew up. He returned to the US to receive an American education and graduated with a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering and master’s degree in education (Anwar). He first attracted attention from the FBI in 1999 with allegations of contact with militants. At the time he was the vice president of an Islamic charity that was believed to be funneling money to terrorists. He also had connections with two of the hijackers from the September 11 attacks. They came to his mosque to pray prior to the attacks (Anwar). His primary threats came with a website aimed at a younger Islamic audience to convert them to Jihadist ways. He moved to London in 2002, but shortly after that returned to Yemen (Anwar). In Yemen he was imprisoned for a short time and after being released his message became much more extreme. Because of this, he gained more attention from the FBI and CIA.
Anwar al-Awlaki had communications with many terrorist caught in spoiled attack attempts. In December 2009, the “underwear bomber” plot was spoiled, when explosives did not detonate. Umar Abdulmutallab, the man responsible for the attempt, had been in contact with Anwar long before his attack (Mazzetti). Similarly, Faisal Shazad who attempted to use a car bomb in Times Square and Nidal Hasan who went on a deadly shooting in Fort Hood, Texas, both were in contact with Anwar about their planned attacks. Anwar acknowledged contact with these men in early 2010, which subsequently led hid to be put on the CIA capture or kill list (Mazzetti). Even with all these facts against him, and he clearly his hatred towards and desire to harm the US, he was still a citizen, so the legality of killing he comes to question.
Barrack Obama gave a statement on September 30, 2011 announcing the death of Anwar al-Awlaki calling it a major milestone in the fight against al-Qaeda and its affiliates. He stated:
The death of Anwar is a major blow to al-Qaeda’s most active affiliate. He took the lead in planning and directing efforts to murder innocent Americans and he repeatedly called on individuals in the United States and around the globe to kill innocent men, women and children to advance a murderous agenda. (Obama)
This statement given shortly after Anwar’s death was to inform American’s of what the President saw as something noteworthy. He belittled Anwar to the public through his announcement by stating Anwar’s goals of harming Americans. He presents all of Anwar’s goals, and failed terror plots to justify his death. Barrack Obama, though, never says that Anwar al-Awlaki was a US citizen. This is done, so initially his decision to have Anwar killed is not questioned. Unless a person was aware of Anwar al-Awlaki prior to Obama’s speech, they would not have known he was a US citizen. Through the rapid spread of this event through online media, Anwar’s background was soon revealed and people began to question his killing.
It was brought to light that the killing of a US citizen violated many rights guaranteed to citizens through the constitution. The fourth and fifth amendments call for no unreasonable seizures by the government and the right to due process of the law. On top of these, murder is illegal; and there are bans on assassinations. Initially, no justification was given for Anwar’s killing, and because of this activist groups and Anwar’s father filled papers to sue the US government over the killing (Johnson). The activists’ initially spread their message through online media, largely in blogs. This was the easiest, most effective means of quickly spreading their message, but once the lawsuit was filed it became major news. All major news sources had articles about the suit and linking to blogs revealing the story to the public even more. The suit was soon thrown out though because “it involved state secrets and raised questions that should be answered in congress, not the courts” (Johnson). In addition to these activist groups calling for justification on Anwar’s “murder”, it caused a controversial issue for politicians to take sides on. Ron Paul had very strong opinions on the matter calling the death an “assassination” on the premises of Anwar’s citizenship and lack of trial, despite many others seeing it as justified (Huffington). This was said after a campaign speech at a New Hampshire college. This showed him staying strong to constitutional rights, to gain voters support, while condemning the Democratic Party for the attack. Because Ron Paul had such a strong opinion and made it known at a large campaign speech it became major news, sparking others to stand out as well.
In response to the uproar on legal justification, the Obama administration released a legal memorandum the offered the needed justification. It was written shortly after September 11 and gave legal justification for acting despite bans on assassinations, and laws against murder. Charlie Savage, a writer at the New York Times, wrote an in-depth article looking into the justifications from the memorandum. His major issue with it was that the document did not directly state that the actions were justified when carried out against an American citizen (Savage). This fact aside, he continues to question the justification. Killing is not “murder” when it is done against a wartime enemy; this being true, Savage questioned if the missile, which was fired by a CIA official, who does not wear a uniform, and is not really “at war”, would thus have murdered al-Awlaki (Savage). The document stated that when possible, the militant should be captured. Savage looked at diplomatic issues with placing soldiers on Yemen soil and the risk to American commandos as the reasons a capture was not feasible, but he points out that both these issues were ignored in the raid on Osama’s complex (Savage). So in fact it may have been possible to plan and execute a capture in stead of a drone strike.
Though salvage points out flaws in the justification, parts of it he finds reasonable and true. The document stated that citizens who had joined an enemy force “can be detained and prosecuted in a military court just like noncitizen enemies” (Savage). It also looked into Anwar’s location, because he was not in the “hot battlefield,” but since he still posed a threat to the US, the justification still applied. The final point Savage looked into was Yemen’s Sovereignty and firing a missile on their soil, but permission had secretly been granted to the US to carry out the attack. Savage shows mixed opinions, though does not support the justification on the killing, through his findings in analysis and questioning of the memorandum given by the Obama administration.
Online letter to the editors on the New York Times article “ When the US Kills an American Citizen” offers some unique takes on the justification as well. Neil Mullen writes:
Without the rule of law, we are left with might makes right. In this decade, we are the mightiest and may deploy drones or Navy Seals to kill those deemed guilty without a trial and proven evidence. In some future decade, another country may deploy such measures, legitimized by such precedent, against targets on our soil. (Mullin)
Mullen offers a unique opinion about law and power. The US cannot just do as it pleases with its power. It needs to have certain legal justification to carry out military attacks. The US may be the largest world power today, but some day another country could be carrying out similar attack on US soil, which would not settle well with government officials. George Wolf an army veteran had a very different opinion. He writes, “I think that it’s a clear-cut case. Anwar al-Awlaki may have been a United States citizen, but the moment he became actively involved in a military campaign against the United States, he became an enemy our military was obligated to fight and kill. (Wolf)” Having faced war, he knows anything has to be done to stop threats against his country. Because of this he does not see Anwar as a fellow citizen but as any other enemy. I see myself agreeing with George wolf, though his idea offers little legal justification, Anwar al-Awlaki worked towards threatening the United States thus he needed to be stopped. I think the justification presented offers enough support to justify the killing. Anwar al-Awlaki was not in places where he could be easily captured, so he was instead tracked to a safe enough location, so there would not be outside causalities; and he was killed with a drone strike. He posed a real threat to the United States and openly admitted his desire to harm US citizens.
The debate over justification on killing US citizens causes lots of questions to be asked over what our true “rights” as a citizen are. Anwar al-Awlaki was no normal citizen; he had been hiding in Yemen and made it clear he wanted to harm US citizens. His open affiliation with a known terrorist organization and his roles in multiple terror attempts did not, though, offer a clear-cut justification for his killing. The Obama administration release some documents to offer some justification, but a deeper analysis of them, like the one done by Charlie Savage, showed that there were still faults in the justification. March 5, 2012, though this changed. Attorney General Eric Holder gave a speech to set in stone the legality in Anwar’s killing. In his speech given at Northwestern University he said:
Let me be clear: an operation using lethal force in a foreign country, targeted against a U.S. citizen who is a senior operational leader of al Qaeda or associated forces, and who is actively engaged in planning to kill Americans, would be lawful at least in the following circumstances: First, the U.S. government has determined, after a thorough and careful review, that the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States; second, capture is not feasible; and third, the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles. (Holder)
All of these conditions had been met, Anwar had been tracked for two years, and when safe in a place where there would not be civilian casualties, he was killed. This will not end the debate; it will only re-spark the flames. Despite this, it has been made official that given particular circumstances killing a US citizen can be and in this case was justified.








Works Cited
"Anwar Al-Awlaki." - The New York Times. 05 Mar. 2012. Web. 20 Feb. 2012. .
AP/The Huffington Post. "Anwar Al-Awlaki Dead: Politicians React To Death Of U.S.-Born Al Qaeda Cleric." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 30 Sept. 2011. Web. 20 Feb. 2012. .
Holder, Eric. "Targeted Killings." Northwestern University School of Law, Chicago. 05 Mar. 2012. Speech.
Johnson, Carrie. "Debate Erupts Over Legality Of Awlaki's Killing." NPR. 30 Sept. 2011. Web. 20 Feb. 2012. .
Mazzetti, Mark, Eric Schmitt, and Robert F. Worth. "Two-Year Manhunt Led to Killing of Awlaki in Yemen." The New York Times. 30 Sept. 2011. Web. 20 Feb. 2012. .
Mullin, Neil. "When the U.S. Kills an American Citizen." Editorial. The New York Times.. 12 Oct. 2011. Web.
.
Obama, Barrack, and PBSnewshour. "Obama: Cleric Al-Awlaki's Death Is 'Major Blow' to Al-Qaida." YouTube. 30 Sept. 2011. Web. 20 Feb. 2012. .
Savage, Charlie. "Secret U.S. Memo Made Legal Case to Kill a Citizen." New York Times (9 Oct. 2011). The New York TImes. 8 Oct. 2011. Web. 18 Feb. 2012. .
Wolf, George. "When the U.S. Kills an American Citizen." Editorial. The New York Times. 12 Oct. 2011. Web. 20 Feb. 2012. .